and had prominently displayed the al-Qaida flag on a Facebook page some months before the deadly attack.

That organization, the February 17th Martyrs Brigade, was paid by the
U.S. government to provide security at the U.S. diplomatic mission in
Benghazi, Libya. But there is no indication the Martyrs Brigade
fulfilled its commitment to defend the mission on Sept. 11, when it came
under attack.

… Several entries on the militia’s Facebook page openly profess sympathy
for Ansar al-Sharia, the hardline Islamist extremist group widely
blamed for the deadly attack on the mission. The State Department did
not respond to a Newsmax request for an explanation as to why the
February 17th Martyrs Brigade was hired to protect the mission.

… Perhaps the biggest question is why the State Department would hire a
group that openly displayed its admiration for al-Qaida, and ask it to
participate in the defense of its diplomatic mission.

The banner, or “cover photo” of one of the group’s Facebook pages, shows
an Islamic fighter, or mujahid, with a portable rocket launcher resting
on his shoulder.

The distinctive black flag of al-Qaida can be seen fluttering to the
man’s right, attached to the vehicle in which he is riding. The mujahid
wears a headband based on the design of the al-Qaida flag. The flag in
question features the shahada, or Islamic declaration of faith, and a
white circle that is sometimes described as the “seal of Mohammed.”

… Throughout the summer leading up to the attack, embassy officials
repeatedly asked the State Department for additional security. But the
State Department actually reduced security, pulling out a military
detachment responsible for defending diplomats in Libya.

One reason the requests for additional security may have been denied:
They did not fit into the administration narrative that al-Qaida
elements no longer posed a threat to U.S. interests.

One diplomatic cable to the mission indicated that the U.S.-based deputy
assistant secretary for diplomatic security was “reluctant to ask for
[additional security] apparently out of concern that it would be
embarrassing to the [State Department] to continue to have to rely on
[Defense Department] assets to protect our mission.”

When the mission’s regional safety officer expressed an interest in July
2012 asking State Department official to permit the military security
team to continue to protect the mission, Charlene Lamb, deputy assistant
secretary in charge of diplomatic security, sent an e-mail that
responded: “NO, I do not [I repeat] not want them to ask for the
[military security] team to stay!”

Republicans have complained in recent weeks that the Obama
administration has been stonewalling their investigation.